The city of Westport has been angling for a cut of what is known as the “landing” tax when it comes to commercial fishing for the better part of a decade and is now closer than ever to realizing that goal.

However, at the Oct. 20 Port of Grays Harbor Commissioners meeting, the commissioners declined to support proposed legislation “as it’s written.”

The Westport Marina is the top commercial fish landing port in Washington state and ranks in the top 10 nationally for both volume and value of seafood landed.

According to the Washington State Department of Revenue, an enhanced food fish tax “is paid by the first commercial possessor. This is usually the licensed dealer who bought the fish. However, if the buyer is someone other than a Department of Fish and Wildlife licensed dealer, the commercial fisher is directly responsible for the tax. … We measure the tax by the value of the fish when first landed. This tax also applies to byproducts and parts of seafood.”

Ninety-nine percent of this tax goes into the state of Washington’s general fund while the other 1% is deposited to the state fish, wildlife and conservation account. The Port of Grays Harbor, which owns and operates the Westport Marina and several upland properties in the city, currently does not receive any of the collected landing tax, and neither does the city of Westport.

Westport Mayor Ed Welter was afforded the opportunity to present and ask for support for HB 1806 at the October 20th Port Commissioners meeting.

“This is trying to redirect about $1.4 billion of the seafood industry back to the rural and economically depressed communities that support that industry for the state of Washington,” Welter said. “… There was an attempt to make this bill go through in 2019 … it did not pass. In (2024) I had the opportunity to work with (Rep. Steve Tharinger, D-24th District) to get the current version of this put into the last legislative round. After getting it that far, it was sitting in the appropriations committee. … We’re looking for ways to support the port, and support this industry without taxing producers, without taxing citizenry. … The ask really is that the Port of Grays Harbor take a stance to support this bill as it’s written. This is an opportunity for a unified Grays Harbor to support a statewide bill that would benefit a lot of rural economically depressed areas to include Pacific County, Ilwaco, Westport, Tokeland, and a number of small communities along the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Clallam County. That is what I am here for is to ask for your support for us to be unified in this as it is presented.”

However, the Commissioners were nonplussed.

“We want to do everything we can do to help our cities, and help us. We own and maintain the marina at a loss, there needs to be some more money redistributed,” Port Commissioner Phil Papac said. “The problem with the bill is the way it’s written. There’s been a lot of discussion but I don’t think we can support it. The intent is wonderful. It would be very hard for me to support it as it’s written. … All of our groups that we belong to are not for this. It’s the way that it’s written up. I hope they can do something with it. As written, I don’t think it’s going to pass. I would love to help but I don’t think I can.”

Although HB 1806, a statewide bill primarily sponsored by Rep. Steve Tharinger, D-24th District, did not pass out of the Appropriations Committee during the most recent legislative session, the city of Westport, along with other fishing communities along the Washington coast including Ilwaco and Raymond, believe the bill still has legs.

And now, the Port of Grays Harbor believes it is entitled to that landing tax money — money the city of Westport would use to help pay for added costs from the commercial fishing industry for areas such as water, roads and workforce housing.

According to Welter, HB 1806 is a statewide bill that affects numerous fish landing sites in Washington. The city of Westport has also engaged the services of lobbyist Emily Shay of Gordon Thomas Honeywell Government Relations, who is also a government affairs specialist for Greater Grays Harbor, Inc., to drum up support for the bill.

“We are asking for 50% of (the landing tax) to be redirected to the community, the municipality or community in which the fish is landed. Supporting a commercial fishing industry requires a lot of infrastructure from a community,” Welter said. “The three processing facilities in the city of Westport use a massive amount of water. They bring in large transient working populations throughout the year. And it is upon the city to support those industries. We haven’t raised commercial water rates in four or five years, and a lot of that is the fact that we do want to try and support the industry and keep the industry here and keep it happy.

“But at the same time, you know how hard it is for a municipality to fund its general fund. And the general fund is what pays for all of those untaxable, non-enterprise things like roads, infrastructure, any type of workforce housing, which we’ve been trying to put in for quite a while now and haven’t been able to make it pencil out. For nine months out of a year, almost 24/7, you got semi-trucks running up and down and in and out of the city of Westport going to and from Ocean Gold, Washington Crab. … And, the port is a separate taxing entity. This is a zero impact bill on the Port in the sense that it takes no money from them.”

According to Welter the Port has been aware of the efforts to draft and pass this legislation and had offered no resistance until recently. He also said that the bill has little chance of passing without the Port’s support.

“We had a meeting with the head of the Washington Public Ports Commissioner

Association,” Welter said. “And they said, ‘we aren’t going to support this unless the Port of Grays Harbor supports it.’ Then they hid behind their association by saying the association doesn’t support it, which is a little frustrating. We have an opportunity to be unified and do something good for a whole lot of rural communities. We can either be supportive and move forward with that, or we can argue and let it die.”

Port of Grays Harbor Executive Director Leonard Barnes sent an email to Westport City Councilor Troy Meyers expressing the Port’s position on HB 1806, which proposes that a portion of the landing tax be allocated to the cities where the fish is landed, allowing these communities to benefit from the taxes paid by commercial fishers.

“The Port of Grays Harbor very much values our relationship and partnership with the city of Westport. Our two organizations have a longstanding history of working together to accomplish results for the Westport community, the Marina district and the thousands that visit the area each year,” Barnes wrote. “The Marina Modernization, or the rehabilitation, replacement and reconfiguration of the Westport Marina’s floating dock infrastructure, is a priority for the Port but will come with a hefty price tag ($60 million) — for which we have very limited funding sources. So, as you can imagine, we take issue with HB 1806 as written as it currently only dedicates funds to the city and not the entity who actually provides the infrastructure to make all of the commercial seafood landings possible, the Port. Much like in 2019, the Port (nor any port) was not part of the conversation prior to the bill being introduced.”

Meyers responded to Barnes’ email and reiterated the contention that the Port has been aware of the efforts to introduce and get this legislation passed from the outset.

“Given the Port’s longstanding knowledge of the city’s efforts on this bill over the years, a more proactive engagement prior to this stage in the legislative session would have aligned with our mutual commitment to good-faith partnership,” Meyers wrote. “Strengthening our intergovernmental affairs and avoiding taxpayer resource wastes through open dialogue is essential, as outlined in RCW 39.34, which encourages inter-local cooperation to resolve shared challenges equitably and avoid unnecessary conflicts that could hinder progress for the Westport community, including the marina, the Port, and broader region.”

John Shaw, executive director of the Westport South Beach Historical Society, sent an email after the meeting to the Port Commissioners expressing disappointment in the position they’ve taken on this issue.

“I listened with surprise this morning at the Commission meeting, hearing that the Port of Grays Harbor could not support the fish landing tax bill that the city of Westport and our area legislators introduced last session and hope to move forward in the coming session. I know, I heard the ‘as written’ part and for me that just makes it more disappointing,” Shaw wrote. “The Port going negative while not being engaged on the topic for years until it sees potential funding seems an unfortunate takeaway from the situation. I hear what the ‘as written’ is about. If there is something else needed that really helps all involved, make that public. The Port wants money and appears fine damaging the progress for several communities late in the game to get the benefit of some tax dollars that go straight to the general fund while also undermining what to date has been very positive work with both 19th and 24th (legislative districts).”

In the same email, Shaw detailed the history of the proposed legislation.

“Landing tax has been a topic for me since 2015–16 with Michael Bruce where I learned from him and the streets department the toll the heavy outgoing truck traffic takes on city streets. Later with Rob Bearden during two terms the city worked for a share of the landing tax and later with legislation proposed by Brian Blake,” Shaw wrote. “Westport working toward a share of the landing tax has a long history. Our current mayor advocated during his campaign that he would push for a share of this money and that has been embraced by the full City Council. Steve Tharinger and the city worked to bring HB 1806 to the table last year and I will attach a video file of his testimony on the bill. The Port and ports have been aware of this bill since late 2024 with no engagement. This is about the cities.”

Port of Grays Harbor Director of Government and Public Affairs Kayla Dunlap says the Port believes the tax or a significant portion of it should be allocated to the Port.

“The Port owns the Westport Marina and all of the floating dock infrastructure that supports all of the commercial seafood landing industry and obviously the landings, the catch, which generates that tax,” Dunlap said. “We, in short, take issue with that money being diverted to the city, which we fully acknowledge that they have infrastructure that supports the industry too, but there’s no consideration of the Port infrastructure in that bill as it currently stands. We have our marina modernization, we have dock projects that we’ll be focusing on for the next two decades. We don’t have dedicated funding at the state level for marinas or commercial marinas like ours. So of course those dollars would go right back into the dock projects that we’re working on right now.”

Washington isn’t the only state that has a fish landing tax. Alaska and California impose such a tax. In Alaska, fisheries business tax and fishery landing tax are currently shared 50% with the municipality where the fish is processed or landed, while the California fish landing tax benefits the California Fish and Game Preservation Fund. Commercial fishing marinas in Alaska and California are owned by municipalities or private companies. In Westport, the Port of Grays Harbor owns the commercial fishing marina.

Molly Bold, general manager of Westport Marina, said that Alaska provides other ways to fund city infrastructure projects.

“I’ve seen it firsthand in Alaska communities where having dedicated funding every year from the state that you can count on to make major infrastructure improvements is a game changer,” Bold said. “It allows you to leverage match dollars. It allows you to save for major infrastructure investment. It is a wonderful, wonderful resource. So if we can find a way to see those resources benefit our coastal communities, that would be ideal.”

Bold added that the Port would prefer any provision of the landing tax to be reinvested directly into the seafood industry, rather than city infrastructure.

“There’s nothing that defines or sets parameters on how or where those dollars are spent. We’ve heard things referenced like sidewalks and streets and workforce housing and other things,” Bold said. “And while, of course, there’s a need for those investments, we’d like to see those dollars stick to supporting the seafood industry and the ports and harbors that generate that revenue. Maybe (it’s) more of a let’s go back to the drawing board and work together and figure this out for the good of the community and for the good of the industry.”

Dunlap added, “Really taking the time to engage and think things through and have a bill that is really going to be supported by all is a good use of our time.”

Welter said he is reluctant to discuss a compromise that would involve a portion of the tax revenue earmarked for the Port.

“I have real heartache with that,” Welter said. “This is a statewide bill directed at putting funds to full communities, not ports and marinas. Ports and marinas are their own businesses. Why does the Port of Grays Harbor deserve a special carve-out for a statewide bill designed to support these rural, economically depressed areas?”

In the days after the Port Commissioners meeting, Welter met with Papac and Barnes to try to convince the Port of Grays Harbor to lend its voice to support the bill ahead of the next state legislative session.

“I had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Papac and Mr. Barnes. I provided them some history and some sense of how it feels in Westport, having them publicly not support the bill as written. And we talked about things that we could do to work toward a resolution that would benefit both the city and the Port,” Welter said. “If the city receives the funds, I have proposed that if the bill passes, the city would work on or enter into a resolution in which the city would commit some of these funds to areas in which the city and the marina interface, such as esplanade, public docks, and public viewing towers and public viewing platforms. That way we could ensure that the city, we could ensure that money is going into the marina to work with the city to create a space that helped represent the community within which the port and the marina operate. (Phil and Leonard) said that they would be willing to work on it and work through some language potentially.

“My biggest fear is that the Port will try and circumvent this at a legislative level. And if they do that, too much reconfiguring of the bill could cause it to be viewed as contentious and then not pass. It is my hope that they would allow the city to continue on the process that it’s been on for five years, knowing that the city is going to continue a strong working relationship with the Port in ways that will support the marina and the industry.

“It is my hope that as we have a continued working relationship with the Port through this language and this process, that they will ultimately support this bill, knowing that the city will support the industry that made this city. I do appreciate the Port taking the time to sit down with me and being willing to try and work through some kind of a resolution. But I hope that they understand that the city has carried this water and we are just very significantly far down this path.”

Welter added that the proposed resolution he would put before the Westport City Council if the bill were to be signed into law would state that funds would be committed to joint projects with the Port of Grays Harbor.

According to the Washington State Legislature’s official website, “The 2026 regular session begins on Monday January 12, 2026. It is a short session, lasting up to 60-days, with an expected end date of Thursday March 12, 2026. Prefiling for the 2026 session begins on Monday December 1, 2025. The last day the governor can take action on a bill is Saturday April 4, 2026, and the 90-day effective date is Thursday June 11, 2026. If the session ends before March 12, 2026, the governor action date and 90-day effective date will change accordingly.”